Vic Sage

last year, Glavine went 15-7, and made $10M. Here is what the other pitchers earned last year, who had similar W-L records: Mussina: 15-7 / $19m Schilling: 15-7 / $13m Halladay: 16-5 / $12.8 Oswalt: 15-8 / $11m Smoltz: 16-9 / $11m Glavine: 15-7 / $10m D.Lowe: 16-8 / $9.5m Zambrano: 16-7 / $6.5m Carpenter: 15-8 / $5m Trachsel: 15-8 / $2.5m Webb: 16-8 / $2.5m Bonderman: 14-8 / $2.3m E.Santana: 16-8 / $0.5m While we overpaid for his first 3 years, I'd say we paid market rate for his production last season, which resulted in also getting 2 more post-season victories. And since getting to the Playoffs was the point in signing him in the first place, I'd say he did what he was signed to do. Still, did we overpay Glavine, overall? Yes. He was a below-average pitcher in his first season (2003), and in the 2004 and 05 seasons, he was a decent pitcher posting an ERA+ of 119 and 118, respectively, so it wasn't like he was a liability, but he was getting paid around $11m/yr while pitchers with comparable ERA+ were getting about 1/2 that amount. (2004 = Maddux-$6m; Clement-$6m; Garcia -$6.9k; K.Escobar-$5.8m; Oswalt-$3.3m; Lilly-$1.9m) But we spent money, not players, to get him, and the approximately $5m/yr we overpaid from 2002-2005 (based on his subsequent production in those years) should not have prevented an organization as rich as the Mets from acquiring other talent to help the team win. And our subsequent acquisitions of Pedro, Beltran, Delgado and wagner indicate that Glavine's salary wasn't much of an obstacle after all.

RealityChuck wrote: ...I think that Fantasy Baseball is the worst thing that ever happened to sports analysis. I have my issues with sabrmetrics, but at least that has produced some useful information. Fantasy sports makes people think that you win real sports games the same way you win in a fantasy league... That's bullshit... or, at least, a gross overgeneralization. I no more confuse the "realities" of fantasy baseball with real baseball than i confuse cartoon violence with real violence, and i don't know anybody who does. Despite your lookwarm compliment of sabrmetrics, your statement is nothing more than a restatement of you're ongoing issue with quantitative analysis and its application to baseball statistics in order to assess real life baseball decisions. You're problem isnt with roto (or not exclusively with roto), its with Billy Beane, Theo Epstein, Paul DiPodesta, Bill James and the growing number of baseball executives who find it a valuable tool. You continue to present yourself as some kind of romantic or baseball purist who gives greater weight to the metaphysics of "intangibles" than the mathematic analysis of "tangibles". Whatever, dude. But don't demean roto players as folks who don't really understand baseball just cuz it suits your agenda to do so.

Neither does Carlos, for that matter.

To watch this movie is to see a master craftsman at the top of his game. I'm as cynical as they come, but Spielberg is able to elicit more terror from a set of jangling keys swinging on a belt, more romance from the setting free of frogs in science class, more humor from a drunken alien, more joy from soaring bicycles crossing the moon, and more sheer wonderment and heartbreak from a glowing red fingertip than any other filmmaker of his generation. youse peeps are just plain nuts.

The Orioles should offer Kris Benson for him.

iramets wrote: Ever wonder what the correlation is between age and time on the DL? Common sense would indicate a high correlation, but this statement is a total non-sequitor in a thread about an injury to Beltran who just turned 30, and is clearly in the prime of his career.

I thought Murnau's SUNRISE was German, but it turns out it was a Fox studio production.

"O Lucky Man" is a strangely fascinating movie. It is the middle chapter of Brit director Lindsay Anderson's "mick travis" trilogy... 3 films he made with Malcolm McDowell playing a sort of Candide type protagonist wandering thru Anderson's surreal satires about British society. The first, "IF...", was made in 1968 and had McDowell, in his youthful pre-CLOCKWORK ORANGE period, leading a student revolt in the British school system. I remember some of the scenes were in color, some in B&W. There was much theorizing of the implications of this technique, but director Anderson later said he just ran out of money about 2/3 of the way thru, so he just shot the rest in B&W. The scene of McDowell on the school roof, shooting everybody with what i remember as a gatling gun, has stayed with me for 25 years. The next chapter, "O, Lucky Man", is Anderson's take on British capitalism and class, with post-CLOCKWORK McDowell now a cult star. Its chaotic, random "structure" (if you will excuse the expression) is punched up by some great music. It is a bit overlong and entirely incoherent, but worth the effort if you like that sort of thing. I do. Anderson's third film in the trilogy, "Britannia Hospital" (1982), has MacDowell experiencing the British system of socialized medicine. Its a less interesting film than the first 2, and worth seeing only to complete the series.

Centerfield wrote: Vic Sage wrote: "Let the BOY TRY!" "yes, yes... let the boy try!!" Is that from Excaliber? Is it weird that even though she's in her sixties I'm still attracted to Helen Mirren? 1) yes it is; 2) no it isn't; and 3) shut up, Ira.

metirish wrote: Vic Sage wrote: what? No "Fargo." yes, no "Fargo". Actually, "Fargo" was one of the movies i was specifically thinking of in my earlier post, when i was discussing movies that were "flavors of the month" and were too new to judge critically, and so didn't belong on the list. Its no surprise to me at all that, upon later reflection, the judges reconsidered that one. As they may well do with "forrest gump", "shawshank redemption" and "titanic" amongst others, at some point down the road. Which is why i think any movies within that last 20 years should just be disqualified from consideration, until they've stood the test of time. Can you explain that further ,why would a judge/critic or whoever it is that helps compile such lists think that a movie they thought was "classic" in 1995 upon further review didn't think of it as classic say in 2007. What would be so different about the movie 10 or 20 years later that would make that person think differently about it. You mentioned Fargo,I watched it a few years ago and thought it was annoying,thought it was great when it first came out. In his day, Salieri was one of the most successful and celebrated composers. Mozart was a brilliant piano player who wrote these very strange shows. I think if you asked the same critics of that period to make an assessment later, they might have had the distance to render more objective opinions about their relative qualities. First of all, some films are of their time, some are ahead of their times, expressing a vision that the society is not yet ready for. Critics and judges are people, not machines. They are swayed by various subjective forces at play in the culture at the time a movie comes out. Their assessments may have been appropriate in the context of a film's particular time period, but in another era, the movie may not hold up. I think "Fargo" is one of those movies. I think there are movies on the list now that may fall into that category as well. And i think there are movies that later come to seem precient, though perhaps unappreciated in their own time. If you had made this list in the mid 1980s, it is unlikely that BLADERUNNER would have appeared on it. But inasmuch as the first list came out 16 years after the movie's first release, it had enough time for people to see it on video/dvd and a reassessment emerged, recognizing not just its own greatness, but its influence on filmmaking thereafter. Thats why a moratorium should be imposed on films within the last 15-20 years when creating such lists. Perhaps FORREST GUMP or TOY STORY wouldn't push its way onto such a list in 10 years time, and perhaps MOULIN ROUGE would.

"Let the BOY TRY!" "yes, yes... let the boy try!!"

kaz Matsui

anyone who rules out reconsideration of anything is an idiot.

what? No "Fargo." yes, no "Fargo". Actually, "Fargo" was one of the movies i was specifically thinking of in my earlier post, when i was discussing movies that were "flavors of the month" and were too new to judge critically, and so didn't belong on the list. Its no surprise to me at all that, upon later reflection, the judges reconsidered that one. As they may well do with "forrest gump", "shawshank redemption" and "titanic" amongst others, at some point down the road. Which is why i think any movies within that last 20 years should just be disqualified from consideration, until they've stood the test of time.

Wright - 3.0 Delgado - 1.25 Schoeneweis - 0.75 Maine - 0.50 Valentin - 0.50 Feliciano - 0.25 Beltran - 0.25

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Vic, which are the five you haven't seen? 1 - Intolerance - After BIRTH OF A NATION, i'd had enough Griffith, thanks. 2 - Sunrise - a silent classic by murnau, i'll probably get around to it at some point. 3 - Swing Time - for some reason, i've never seen this Astaire musical... probably the only Astaire musical i haven't seen. 4 - Nashville - supposed to be one of Altman's better ones, but from bits and pieces i've seen of it over the years, I have no interest. 5 - Last Picture Show - you'd think a naked young cybil shephard would hold some allure for me, wouldn't you? But no so far.

i'd like to add a negative -6.19 on behalf of my daughter and I, sitting up in the grandstand that shitty night.

i've seen 95 of the AFI 100. I guess i just watch movies too often.

If you were going to make a list of "100 best", you'd have to consider foreign films too (which they don't seem to have done). But even if you were to just limit it to Hollywood (or at least English language) films, you probably shouldn't be considering any films made within the last 20 years, since not enough time has passed to determine the film's long term values. For instance, if you look back at some of the past AFI lists, you'll see a number of "flavor of the month" movies that no longer get serious consideration in this discussion. It devalues such an exercise if you include those types of films. So lets take another look at the movies on the list from 1987 on: 8. "Schindler's List" (1993) 50. "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" (2001) 68. "Unforgiven" (1992) 72. "The Shawshank Redemption" (1994) 74. "The Silence of the Lambs" (1991) 76. "Forrest Gump" (1994) 83. "Titanic" (1997) 89. "The Sixth Sense" (1999) 92. "Goodfellas" (1990) 94. "Pulp Fiction" (1994) 96. "Do the Right Thing" (1989) 99. "Toy Story" (1995) I think some of these movies should ultimately make such a list, and some shouldn't, but do these really deserve to bump off such classics as _________ (name your favorite overlooked masterpiece)

Lets see which of my own idiosyncratic list of "Top 100 faves" (not intended to be the "100 best") made the AFI list (films on the AFI list are noted with "*"): 7 faces of Dr. Lao 12 Angry Men - * 1776 2001: A Space Odyssey - * Adventures of Robin Hood African Queen - * All that Jazz Annie Hall - * Apartment - * Apocalypse Now - * Atlantic City Avanti! Barbarella Beauty and the beast (Animated) Ben-Hur - * Blade Runner * Bringing Up Baby - * Bull Durham Casablanca - * Chinatown - * Citizen Kane - * Clockwork Orange, A - * Court Jester, The Crow, The Diner Double Indemnity - * Dr. Strangelove - * Duck Soup - * ET - * Empire Strikes Back Enter the Dragon Excalibur Field of Dreams Gallipoli Ghost & Mrs. Muir Godfather - * Godfather II - * Goldfinger Goodfellas - * Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Great Escape Halloween Harold & Maude Here Comes Mr. Jordan His Girl Friday It�s a Gift It�s a Wonderful Life - * Jason & the Argonauts Jaws - * King Kong - * Lawrence of Arabia - * Local Hero Lord of the Rings trilogy - * Mad Max 2: Road Warrior Magnificent 7 Maltese Falcon - * Man who Would be King March of the Wooden Soldiers MASH - * Metropolis Miracle on 34th St Modern Times - * Monty Python and the Holy Grail Moulin Rouge National Lampoon�s Animal House Never Give a Sucker an Even Break Night of the Living Dead On the Town Philadelphia Story - * Platoon - * Psycho - * Producers Pulp Fiction - * Quiet Man Raging Bull - * Raiders of the Lost Ark - * Rear Window - * Rocky - * Rocky Horror Picture Show Searchers - * Shane - * Singin in the Rain - * Some Like it Hot - * Spartacus - * Stairway to Heaven Star Wars - * Stunt Man Sullivan's Travels - * Sunset Boulevard - * Sweet Smell of Success Thief of Baghdad Third Man This is Spinal Tap Unbreakable Unforgiven - * Where�s Poppa Wild Bunch - * Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory Wizard of Oz - * Young Frankenstein ... and here are some others from the AFI list that could've easily made my list: 9. "Vertigo" (1958) 11. "City Lights" (1931) 17. "The Graduate" (1967) 27. "High Noon" (1952) 37. "The Best Years of Our Lives" (1946) 38. "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (1948) 42. "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967) 43. "Midnight Cowboy" (1969) 46. "It Happened One Night" (1934) 51. "West Side Story" (1961) 52. "Taxi Driver" (1976) 53. "The Deer Hunter" (1978) 55. "North by Northwest" (1959) 64. "Network" (1976) 69. "Tootsie" (1982) 72. "The Shawshank Redemption" (1994) 73. "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (1969) 74. "The Silence of the Lambs" (1991) 89. "The Sixth Sense" (1999) 99. "Toy Story" (1995)

I'm taking my daughter to the game. We're sitting in the upper deck, so i hope we don't get rained on. anybody else going?

Willets Point wrote: By the way, I suspect somewhere on the internet Soupcan has put together a database of female actresses and movies they appeared naked in. its already there http://tour.mrskin.com/page1.html

you guys are overthinking it. Hojo is Wright's coach and Ricky is Reyes' coach. Now just 23 more coaches to go...

i'd like to read a story in the Post one day that Rachel Ray had her head split open with a meat cleaver in a horrible kitchen accident. That would be "delish".

soupcan wrote: Reese Witherspoon naked in: Twilight. Drew Barrymore naked in: Guncrazy Doppleganger Bad Girls Boys On The Side Poison Ivy Bernadette Peters naked in: Pink Cadillac Thank you for the bare facts, Mr. Skin.